Applying SEEM Updates, Calibration, and Measure Interaction Decisions to: Single Family Weatherization and HVAC UES Measures Follow-up from August RTF Meeting Regional Technical Forum September 16, 2014

Ultimate Goal: Decisions 2 For Example: “I _______ move the RTF: Adopt the updated savings and costs for Single Family Weatherization UES measures as proposed, and set measure status and category as follows: – Attic Insulation: Status = Active, Category = Proven – Wall Insulation: Status = Active, Category = Proven – Floor Insulation: Status = Active, Category = Proven – Window Retrofit: Status = Active, Category = Proven – Window Upgrades: Status = Active, Category = Proven – Infiltration Reduction: Status = Active, Category = Proven Approve Staff to (Add) / (Not add) measure identifiers to heat pump conversion measures. Adopt the updated savings and costs for Single Family HVAC UES measures as proposed, and set measure status and category as follows: – Heat Pump Upgrades: Status = Active, Category = Proven – Heat Pump Conversion from FAF: Status = (depends on decision above), Category = (depends on decision above) – DHP in Zonal Heated House: Status = (depends on decision above), Category = (depends on decision above) – Duct Sealing: Status = Under Review, Category = Proven – PTCS CC&S: Status = Under Review, Category = Planning. “ 2

Where We Left Off Today’s Agenda a b 3

1. Add Measure Identifiers to Heat Pump Conversion Measures? Slides from August Meeting: 4 4

Yes or No? 55

2. Compare to Evaluation Data Question: How do the RTF UES results compare to evaluated programs; are RTF proposed values too low? – Issues: SEEM calibration is based on an “observational” dataset (RBSA), not “experimental” (ex. Pre/Post billing analysis) The analysis has had many changes since the last version of UES’s Most proposed UES values are less than the previous UES values Plan: Compare RTF Proposed UES savings to (2) recent ETO evaluations – Note: Both studies are of gas homes; RTF UES’s need to be converted to Gas FAF RTF Existing Gas UES’s converted based on eFAF UES’s: – Uses Gas t-stat setting; – Uses forced air run patterns (high supply air temp, low run times) RTF Proposed Gas UES’s converted based on eFAF UES’s: – Uses Gas Phase I adjustments; – Uses eFAF characteristic scenarios; – Uses forced air run patterns (high supply air temp, low run times) RTF Proposed Gas UES’s converted based on HP UES’s: – Uses Gas Phase I adjustments; – Uses HP characteristic scenarios; – Uses heat pump run patterns (low supply air temp, long run times) 66

2. Compare to Evaluation Data (A) A.Clean Energy Works Oregon : – Program: Comprehensive/Whole-house Retrofits – Evaluation Provides: Whole-house Average Savings n = 240 in 2010; 391 in 2011 Analysis: PRISM-like pre/post analysis for gas heated homes – Results for the few electrically heated homes in the program weren’t conclusive Available Data: Beginning and ending R-value’s and leakage levels known for each house, along with measure square footage. Conclusion: No, RTF proposed values don’t appear to be too low, when compared to ETO evaluation data on gas heated houses. 77

8 A 8

2. Compare to Evaluation Data (B) B.Draft 2009 Existing Homes Programs Gas Impact Analysis: – Program: More Typical Weatherization (Home Energy Savers) – Evaluation provides: Whole-house savings and Average savings per measure n=7,344 sites Analysis: PRISM-like pre/post analysis for gas heated homes to estimate average household savings; and multivariate regression to estimate measure level savings Available Data: Beginning and ending R-value’s estimated using data from the 2009 time period – Conclusion: No, RTF proposed values don’t appear to be too low, when compared to ETO evaluation data on gas heated houses. 9

10 B

11 B Window starting conditions data for the ETO program were not available, so each eligible starting point is shown here. 11

Can we check this one off? 12

3a. Explain why infiltration savings went down Different Calculation Method in SEEM (see December 2011 Presentation for details) – Old Version of SEEM: Infiltration is an input Input = ACHn (CFM50 * 60 / 20 / House Volume) – New version of SEEM: Infiltration is modeled Input = CFM50 (blower door test result), Stack Height, Weather Comparison: – Modeled infiltration measure savings for each prototype in Portland 69/64, no adjustment). – Results, expressed as a ratio of SEEMnew Savings/SEEMold Savings: 1344 ft2: 43% 2200 ft2: 64% 2688 ft2: 49% Then, there are differences from SEEM Calibration and Measure Interaction adjustments… 13 Slide from August Meeting: 13

14

Can we check this one off? 15

3b. Explain “R-0” cases in more detail R-Value (h·ft 2 ·F°/Btu) Inputs for Uninsulated Components ComponentCurrentProposed Attic Wall Floor Current – R-values “hand-calibrated” to give reasonable SEEM heating energy use results from uninsulated cases Proposed – R-values based on the parallel-path method for two-dimensional assembly u-factor calculation prescribed in the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals 2013 (Chapter 27 for examples) Building component and air film and space R- and U-values from Chapter 26 Both methods were used in their respective SEEM calibrations 16

Can we check this one off? 17

4. Explain Cooling and Heating Baselines for Heat Pump Conversion measures in more detail Heating Savings: Conversion to Heat Pump from FAF (w/ or w/o CAC) 18 Savings 0 Years RUL FAF Pre-Conditions Baselines (Assumes FAF has remaining life) Some % of houses would have selected HP at RUL FAF : Some % of houses would have selected FAF at RUL FAF : Savings 0 Years RUL FAF Current Practice Baselines (Assumes FAF is at the end of its useful life) Some % of houses would have selected FAF without the program: Savings 0 Years Some % of houses would have selected HP without the program: Savings 0 Years RTF has previously assumed pre- conditions baseline, with 100% of houses “would have” selected FAF at RUL FAF. (Note savings are the same if we use current practice baseline where 100% select FAF.) 18

4. Explain Cooling and Heating Baselines for Heat Pump Conversion measures in more detail Cooling Savings: Conversion to Heat Pump from FAF (w/CAC) 19 Savings 0 Years RUL CAC Pre-Conditions Baselines (Assumes CAC has remaining life) Some % of houses would have selected FAF w/o CAC at RUL CAC : Some % of houses (most) would have selected HP or CAC at RUL CAC : Savings 0 Years RUL CAC Current Practice Baselines (Assumes CAC is at the end of its useful life) Some % of houses (most) would have selected HP or CAC without the program: Savings 0 Years Some % of houses would have selected FAF w/o CAC without the program: Savings 0 Years And they might, or might not add cooling later: Cooling No Cooling And they might, or might not add cooling later: Cooling No Cooling RTF has previously assumed current practice baseline, with 100% of houses “would have” selected CAC (or HP) without the program. 19

4. Explain Cooling and Heating Baselines for Heat Pump Conversion measures in more detail Cooling Savings: Conversion to Heat Pump from FAF (w/o CAC) 20 Savings 0 Years RUL FAF Pre-Conditions Baselines (Assumes FAF has remaining life) Some % of houses would have selected HP or CAC at RUL FAF : Some % of houses would have selected no CAC at RUL FAF : Savings 0 Years RUL FAF Current Practice Baselines (Assumes FAF is at the end of its useful life) Some % of houses would not have chosen cooling: Savings 0 Years Some % of houses would have selected a HP without the program: Savings 0 Years RTF has previously assumed current practice baseline, with 100% of houses “would not have” chosen cooling without the program. Recently, for DHP’s, the RTF added in the “but might add cooling later” assumption. (Note that we’ve taken a shortcut in the calculation by using the average cooling saturation over a 15-year period.) But they might add cooling later: Cooling No Cooling Average of cooling and no cooling Simplification 20

Can we check this one off? 21

5. Revisit Window Cost Estimates (Costs are per ft 2, in 2006$’s) MeasureProposed Costs Data SourceCurrent SIW Costs Previous SIW Costs BaselineEfficient ExistingU-0.30$18.51ETO Program Data$20.87$20.61 U-0.35U-0.30$1.13ETO Study & PNNL Study *$1.65$0.89 U-0.35U-0.22$4.42ETO Study & PNNL Study *$6.58$ ETO Program Data – Invoices from 1399 window retrofits – Lower quartile used here to remove improvements unrelated to efficiency ETO Study: “Residential Windows Market Research Report” (2014) – Survey looking at Dealer costs of different u-value window upgrades $0.70 for U-0.35 to U-0.30 $2.76 for U-0.35 to U-0.22 PNNL Study: “Highly Insulating Windows Volume Purchase Program” (2013) – Retail incremental cost from U-0.30 to U $1.42 to $5.19, average is $3.29 * Calculations: – ETO dealer cost of U-0.30 to U-0.22: $2.76-$0.70 = $2.06 – Dealer Markup = $3.29/$2.06 – 1 = 60% – Retail Costs U-0.35 to U-0.30: $0.70 * (1+60%) = $1.13 U-0.35 to U-0.22: $2.76 * (1+60%) = $

Can we check this one off? 23

… One More Issue Houses with DHP’s have very similar savings to houses with Zonal heating systems – Staff does not believe the differences are meaningful We’re not sure whether the differences are real, and/or an outcome of merging the DHP calibration to the Zonal/ASHP calibration For Wx measures, the staff proposal is to use Zonal savings for both Zonal and DHP houses – This assumes for DHP houses, zonal electric is (mostly) the marginal heating system We also expect there to be some temperature takeback with the DHP (i.e. higher t-stat setting) Does the RTF agree with the Staff Proposal? 24

Next Steps Decisions? And/Or More white-board issues for a future meeting? 25